Starmer says he is ‘horrified' steelworks are mothballed due to SNP's ‘bad deal'
Sir Keir Starmer has said he is 'horrified' that steelworks in Lanarkshire have been effectively mothballed, and is calling on John Swinney to step in to revive them.
The Prime Minister said the SNP-run Scottish Government had failed to find work to keep the sites thriving after negotiating a 'bad deal' which saw them being bought by a new owner.
The plants at Dalzell and Clydebridge were bought by the Liberty House group in 2016, backed by a £7 million loan from the Scottish Government.
The group, which is part of Sanjeev Gupta's GFG Alliance, also owns the Lochaber aluminium smelter.
The Labour leader's comments come after the US trade deal which was reached on Thursday – which cut tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium.
Mr Swinney's party said Sir Keir was attempting to 'wash over' his own industrial failures.
Writing in the Sunday Times, the Prime Minister said: 'I'm proud we've secured a deal that slashes tariffs on the steel and aluminium industries to zero.
'This Labour government will always support our proud steel industry. So I'm horrified that the Dalzell and Clydebridge steelworks in Lanarkshire are lying mothballed, with workers on furlough.
'All because the SNP negotiated a bad deal and have had no industrial strategy to bring work to those mills.
'We're standing up for Scottish steel – now Swinney needs to step in and get those plants up and running again.'
It is understood that some staff at Dalzell in Motherwell have been furloughed and there is no work going through the plant.
The Prime Minister also highlighted the trade deal with India, which cuts costs on the crucial Scottish export of whisky.
SNP MP Pete Wishart laid the blame on the UK Government, saying it had failed to back the Scottish industry in contrast to the action taken to protect plants south of the border.
He told the newspaper: 'The audacity of Keir Starmer to attempt to wash over the UK government's betrayal of Scottish industry is insulting.
'They put emergency support in for Scunthorpe steelworks and deliberately legislated to exclude Scotland and therefore, Dalzell works from any such help, now or in the future.'
He added: 'Like the Tories, Labour are making it abundantly clear that Scotland will always be an afterthought for Westminster. The SNP is the only party that will always be on Scotland's side.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Protesters rally against ICE for second day in Los Angeles
Federal agents in Los Angeles on Saturday faced off against demonstrators protesting immigration raids following Friday's protests that senior White House aide Stephen Miller condemned as an "insurrection" against the United States. The security agents on Saturday engaged in a tense confrontation with protesters in the Paramount area in southeast Los Angeles, where one demonstrator was seen waving a Mexican flag and some covered their mouths with respiratory masks. A live video feed showed dozens of green-uniformed security personnel with gas masks lined up on a road strewn with overturned shopping carts as small canisters exploded into gas clouds. A first round of protests kicked off on Friday night after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conductedenforcement operationsin the city and arrested at least 44 people on alleged immigration violations. The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that "1,000 rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer funded property." Reuters was unable to verify DHS's accounts. Miller, an immigration hardliner and the White House deputy chief of staff, wrote on X that Friday's demonstrations were "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States." The protests pit Democratic-run Los Angeles, where census data suggests a significant portion of the population is Hispanic and foreign-born, against Trump's Republican White House, which has made cracking down on immigration a hallmark of his second term. Trump has pledged to deport record numbers of people in the country illegally and lock down the U.S.-Mexico border, with the White House setting a goal for ICE to arrest at least 3,000 migrants per day. But the sweeping immigration crackdown has also included people legally residing in the country, including some with permanent residence, and has led to legal challenges. In a statement on Saturday about the protests in Paramount, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office said: "It appeared that federal law enforcement officers were in the area, and that members of the public were gathering to protest." ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Los Angeles Police Department did not respond to a request for information about the protests or potential immigration sweeps on Saturday. Television news footage earlier on Friday showed unmarked vehicles resembling military transport and vans loaded with uniformed federal agents streaming through Los Angeles streets as part of the immigration enforcement operation. The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, in a statement condemned the immigration raids. "I am deeply angered by what has taken place," Bass said. "These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. We will not stand for this." The LAPD did not take part in the immigration enforcement. It was deployed to quell civil unrest after crowds protesting the deportation raids spray-painted anti-ICE slogans on the walls of a federal court building and gathered outside a nearby jail where some of the detainees were reportedly being held. In a statement, DHS criticized Democratic politicians including Mayor Bass, saying their anti-ICE rhetoric was contributing to violence against immigration agents. "From comparisons to the modern-day Nazi gestapo to glorifying rioters, the violent rhetoric of these sanctuary politicians is beyond the pale. This violence against ICE must end," said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. FBI deputy director Dan Bongino posted on X that they were reviewing evidence from the protests. "We are working with the U.S. Attorney's Office to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice," Bongino said.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abbott calls Starmer's immigration comments ‘fundamentally racist' at rally
Backbench Labour MP Diane Abbott has criticised Sir Keir Starmer's comments on immigration as 'fundamentally racist' at a protest rally, suggesting the Government was copying the rhetoric of Reform UK. Thousands of trade unionists, campaigners and activists gathered to 'send a message' to the Government at a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform in central London on Saturday. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Abbott were among those who gave speeches at the rally outside Downing Street following a march. Organisers The People's Assembly accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. The Prime Minister said the UK risked becoming 'an island of strangers' when he unveiled plans for tighter controls on immigration in a major speech last month, leading to a mixed reaction from different parties. Addressing the protest crowd in Whitehall, Ms Abbott – who was previously suspended by Labour in 2023 before being allowed to run in last year's general election – said there was an international struggle to 'fight the rich and the powerful (and) to fight the racists', including in her own party. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And, finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. 'I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country. 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' Reform's leader Nigel Farage previously said his party 'very much enjoyed' Sir Keir's speech, as it showed he was 'learning a great deal' from them. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could be seen at the demonstration's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. Mr Corbyn, who also criticised Sir Keir's 'island of strangers' comments, told protesters at the rally: 'As the wars rage around the world – the killing fields in Ukraine and Russia, the abominable, deliberate starvation of children in Gaza and the genocide that's inflicted against the Palestinian people continues – surely to goodness we need a world of peace. 'We need a world of peace that will come through the vision of peace, the vision of disarmament and the vision of actually challenging the causes of war, which leads to the desperation and the refugee flows of today.' The Independent MP for Islington North urged protesters to 'go forward as a movement of hope, of what we can achieve together (and) the society we can build together'. The People's Assembly said trade unionists, health, disability, housing and welfare campaigners with community organisations came together for the protest under the slogan 'No to Austerity2.0'. A spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
